[evgen]

You have repeated this thesis several times without providing any support beyond a child-like belief in the invisible hand. Why not prove your point by showing that at times when illegal immigration dropped the nominal average wage for low-skill workers increased relative to the rest of the workforce, if you can.

[sykh]

I've not indicated a child-like belief in the invisible hand. Labor is a product. If the supply is constricted then the price for it ought to go up. Isn't this generally true? So much so that if it isn't the case in this situation then one ought to provide reasoning for this.

A claim was made that constricting immigration will not lead to increased wages. I think this is contrary to how it normally works and thus the person making that claim ought to show why it's true. Let's turn it around, why don't you show the reverse of what you ask me?

I'm not an economist. I merely asked a question and sought input as to why labor prices wouldn't increase. I think you are reading too much into what I wrote. I'm strongly in favor of immigration. I'm a union member and I think labor laws are far too lax in the U.S. I think immigration would not be an issue if we had strong labor laws that were enforced. But we don't have those laws and thus people blame immigration for their woes.

But whatever one believes with regard to immigration it's extremist to think that there are no negative consequences of immigration and it's extremist to think there are no positive consequences of immigration.

From [1]:

For some subperiods and groups, the effects are positive or zero, but the most common result is that a 1 percentage point increase in the fraction of the population that is foreign-born reduces wages from 1.0–1.6 percent.

It's worth pointing out that the paper mentions that calculating the true impact is hard and controversial so who knows if the above is correct?

[1] https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257%2Fjep.9.2.23